摘要 目的 评价国内公共卫生硕士系统评价与Meta分析类学位论文的报告质量和方法学质量，为提高公共卫生硕士培养质量提供依据。 方法 采用评价工具PRISMA清单和AMSTAR量表对国内公共卫生硕士系统评价与Meta分析类学位论文的报告质量和方法学质量进行评价。 结果 纳入论文的PRISMA清单得分为（22.08±2.54）分，仅做系统评价或Meta分析的学位论文PRISMA得分高于既做系统评价又做Meta分析的学位论文（t=3.40，P＜0.05），纳入的学位论文中原始研究为随机对照试验的PRISMA得分高于原始研究为非随机对照试验的学位论文（t=－2.11,P＜0.05）；PRISMA清单中有18个条目的报告率超过了80%。所有纳入论文的AMSTAR量表得分为（6.79±1.51）分，有基金支持的学位论文AMSTAR得分高于无基金支持的论文（t=－2.19,P＜0.05）；AMSTAR量表中仅有4个条目的报告率超过80%。 结论 我国公共卫生硕士系统评价与Meta分析类学位论文的报告质量较高，方法学质量中等，仍存在不同程度的缺陷，还需要改进和提升。 Abstract：Objective To investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in dissertations for Master of Public Health (MPH) in China, and to provide a basis for improving the education quality of MPH. Methods The PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in the dissertations for MPH. Results The mean PRISMA score of included dissertations was 22.08±2.54, and the dissertations with systematic reviews or Meta-analyses alone had a significantly higher PRISMA score than those with both systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (t=3.40,P<0.05); the included dissertations with randomized controlled trials as original studies had a significantly higher PRISMA score than those with non-randomized controlled trials as original studies (t=-2.11,P<0.05); a total of 18 items in the PRISMA checklist had a reporting rate of >80%. The mean AMSTAR score of included dissertations was 6.79±1.51, and the dissertations with funding support had a significantly higher AMSTAR score than those without funding support (t=-2.19,P<0.05); only 4 items in the AMSTAR tool had a reporting rate of >80%. Conclusion MPH dissertations with systematic reviews and Meta-analyses in China have a high level of reporting quality and a medium level of methodological quality. There are still some defects in the methodological and reporting quality that need to be improved
